phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Then we understand examples and the point of them differently.

In regard to Christianity, climate change, Trump etc., someone can note a context in which they express their own particular spiritual or moral or political prejudices. These prejudices precipitate behaviors that conflict with my own. Now, as a moral nihilist, my point to them is that the conflicts revolve around the manner in which I construe individual value judgments as rooted existentially in dasein. Conflicts are expected by me because, in a No God world, there does not appear to be a font that mere mortals can turn to make the conflicts go away. So while the conflicts are expected, I don’t expect there to be any actual definitive resolutions.

What I’m trying to grasp is how, regarding your own conflicts with others pertaining to spiritual, moral or political values, you explain the conflict to them as a perfect nihilist.

Note where your examples above have accomplished this.

On the other hand, as an objectivist myself back then, if someone expressed an opposing opinion about Christianity, Nixon, abortion etc., I would insist that they were wrong. They must be. Why? Because I knew for certain that I was right.

Sure, to the extent you largely avoid interacting with others, your values and your behaviors don’t get challenged. What interest me however are those who call themselves perfect nihilists and who do find their values and behaviors challenged by others. And this is the case because they do spend a lot of time interacting with them. What then for the perfect nihilists when explaining the behaviors they choose?

Note to others:

Let’s try this:

1] If you think you do understand what he is saying here and
2] if you do interact with others and
3] If, from time to time, your values and behaviors are challenged by them, what do you imagine his point above about being a perfect nihilist is?

Maybe you do. We’ll still need to examine a specific set of circumstances in order to explore the components of moral nihilism and the components of perfect nihilism.

But: my point here is even more dismal. To wit: Even to the extent that I would embrace “moderation, negotiation and compromise” if I was socially, politically and economically active again, “I” would still be no less “fractured and fragmented”.

And it’s that part the objectivist are themselves most repelled by. This thread itself revolves around exploring the extent to which phoneutria is herself an objectivist as I understand it. If she is, is she smart enough to perhaps yank me up out of the hole I’m in? Or, if she engages with me, will I be the one who succeeds in yanking her down into it.

In fact, I suspected that this concerned her enough to “foe” me.

As for all this…

…what is it other than just another ponderous “intellectual contraption” that in no way addresses itself to any particular contexts that revolve around “morality here and now and immortality there and then”. The existential relationship I wish to explore with phoneutria and her ilk.

Thus…

Bring “Nietzsche’s Natural Ethical Order” out into the world of conflicting goods, note a context most here will be familiar with and we can exchange specific description of the “moral nihilist” and the “perfect nihilist” interacting with others who challenge their values and behaviors…

More to the point, they don’t care about your intellectual contraptions above. And they sure as shit don’t care about mine. And, in this postmodern world, they are everywhere. They live their lives entirely in sync with doing whatever the fuck they want to. And if you or I or phoneutria or others get in their way, it’s dog eat dog survival of the fittest.

For them, the number one concern is this: don’t get caught. And, if you do, mow them down.

Again, from my frame of mind, it depends on the extent to which they see their interactions with others [in a world of conflicting goods] as a “fractured and fragmented” persona. Yes, the more successful I am at bringing them over to my frame of mind, the greater the chances are that they themselves might choose the route of the sociopaths. I can only attempt to suggest instead that they accept the arguments I make in my signature threads and agree to accept their values and their behaviors as the embodiment of “existential leaps of faith” based on particular political prejudices rooted in dasein.

And then when they note that this is just another “intellectual contraption”, I say ,“you’re right, let’s bring it down to earth.”

We don’t know what changes or does not change as a result of a “will to power” rooted in the actual reality of human autonomy. All I can do is to speculate regarding this. If my own understanding of determinism is the case any change at all is only in accordance with whatever set the laws of matter into motion going back to whatever set into motion existence itself.

Conventional truth, unconventional truth…what’s the difference if truth itself is merely an “act of nature” going back to the explanation for existence itself.

What, you think that anything Nietzsche thought, felt, said, wrote or did is somehow the exeption? Or that perhaps you and I are?

What he said. Definitely.

I admit , another’s opinion does count to reinforce one’s own convictions.

That goes to the heart of objectivism, reliance on the other. The singular Das Ein in then is circumvented.

Then, the effects will not disentangle affectively, leaving shorted out projections, in favor over long held conventional objectives.The ego gets involved , so political biases form, that result in polarized social organization.

phoneutria takes up abortion on the 2nd Amendment thread.
No, really.

Can we assume that this is merely her own subjective opinion rooted existentially in dasein…or do you think she might actually be arguing this frame of mind reflects that which all rational and virtuous people are obligated to share in turn?

Is this an important question for philosophers to ask?

Again, to what extent does she take the time to explore how “points of view” like this come to be a part of her contributions in a philosophy venue.

Or, perhaps, does she just figure that for whatever reason this is how she thinks “here and now”, and that need be as far as it goes.

Now, this seems to be an incredibly naive approach to grappling with your own value judgments. But I have come upon any number of people are were quite content to let it go at that.

This certainly coincides with her self categorical assertion of being an absolute nihilist moralist.

Since it is based on reverse moralism, it can present an early arcytipical type of primitive ethical stance.

For instance , Tibetan monks follow a long adhered to custom of burial; take the deceased up into the mountains, after breaking the back of the corpse, then bundle it, and leave it unburied for animals to feed upon it.

Another one is similar to the Ancient Inca civilizations of Mexico , the hero of a war was taken to the top of a Mayan pyramid , his back broken while alive, and left as a sacrifice to the Sun God, to assure a long and fertile rain during the coming wet season with plenty of sunshine to follow.

Hey Meno, Incas where 100’s of 1000’s of kilometers away from Mayan pyramids.

Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.

But cmon. Never happened.

[quote=“Pedro I Rengel”]
Hey Meno, Incas where 100’s of 1000’s of kilometers away from Mayan pyramids.

Otherwise, you know, there do are people that understand what you mean, even though you phrase it in such a way as to avoid contention.

But cmon. Never happened.[/quo

Sorry I meant Aztecs, and i learned from a guy in the Yucatan. , where other barbaric things happened like sacrificing virgins , them again giving themselves for such an honor.

You are right me avoiding contention cause I am a peace loving person

Well, I suppose he does have relatively lucid moments. Thus he’s actually said something since then, namely that phoneutria’s “absolute nihilist moralism” or “reverse moralism”, whatever that means, can be compared to the “primitive ethical stance” of Tibetan monks and Incan or Aztec (but not Mayan) civilizations (which is “arcytipical” because it was shared by such remote people as Tibetans and Native Americans). I find it strange, though, that you haven’t objected to this assertion. I mean, aren’t you in love with phoneutria, and weren’t you of the opinion that it was a good thing that Christianity mostly replaced such “barbaric things” in the Americas? (Fixed Cross told me that last bit once.)

Also, seeing as you do understand what Meno means, please tell me what he means by that post of his in which he did the opposite of avoiding contention by claiming that my style was “dynamically insubstantial”:

[/quote]
You are an idiot disliking person. But you pay the price of filtering out smart ones too, and maybe that’s also wise.

Aztecs did sacrifice war heroes. But usually not by breaking their backs and leaving them there. They would be made to battle opponents until they got killed. It was meant as an honor, not a humiliation.

they did also sacrifice virgins though. Brutally. Anyway I’m sure this is off point.

Pedro said :

You are an idiot disliking person. But you pay the price of filtering out smart ones too, and maybe that’s also wise.

Aztecs did sacrifice war heroes. But usually not by breaking their backs and leaving them there. They would be made to battle opponents until they got killed. It was meant as an honor, not a humiliation.

they did also sacrifice virgins though. Brutally. Anyway I’m sure this is off point.
[/quote]
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

If I got false ’ facts’ then i shouldn’tshouldn’t be blamed with breaking a budding romance with fishy Phoneutria. The source believed reliable was in Yucatan and near a pyramid, as this innuendo was reported.

The hero, iaccompanied by a highly placed priest and the king of the land, accompanied the hero to the top of the pyramid, in sight of the crowd, and his back was broken, and then that is where the story ends. The virgins, all stunning beauties, all dressed in magnificent jewels, were cast into a deep vat, all of them nonesswimmers.

As far as not liking intelligent women, maybe. interpreting this as a sign of demanding submission from a challenging women, well perhaps but no.

Anyway ruffling feathers is not my forte, and maybe the intelligence bit, may occasion reversely in this case.

That she is lovely, no doubt about it, and with wit to boot, and of course she must be able to begin to understand that to me , rejecting a sound argument and thinking that my posts add answered for a purpose could translate to very similar signals: namely some arguments remain closed, not by the author, but by the reader, for reasons unknown.

Note: to live on a plateau which requires post modern undefstanding, one must behind to live there, as the Romans once did.

Of course there, the habit of wearing masks, still determined the roles meant to be conveyed.

[quote=“Meno_”]
Pedro said :

I have a feeling we’re not talking about Inca pyramids anymore.

No and maybe we shouldn’t. Masks yes. We are all wearing them. for real or not, and someone said that in the end we wear the most deserving one The point is, we really do not know one another, and so. allowences are to learn how to respond according to some appraisal calculated beat in that context, within a wider margin of situation.

So it is, so it should not come as a surprise if some off the wall presuming response of the

wall knocks our socks off.

Good to see you fc.

Thanks.

Likewhys now, but then with a need to reconstruct daily, I seek the innerds to sustain assurance.of existential certainty.

No real faith in the outer shell fish. Swimming upstream has it’s moments, though, …

And will waft the breeze with spider woman at a later time, as occasion requires it, but it seems this forum is pretty well wound up. Though along with Buggy, I may be off on it, it is endless with prefab images blocking the view from most angles. (& Al I want is a room somewhere, but no chocolate to eat-allergic you know)

That is why I understand, why you post how you do, because we are alike in that respect, but I possess a volatility (that requires exercising now and again), that you do not.

When an argument is not of a confrontational kind, respondents are unsure of how to approach it and formulate a response… because there’s no hook… unlike in ac electricity or Velcro. Our type is also the most disliked by other types, but hey.

“but it seems this forum is pretty well wound up” Meno, it’s called having a pulse… don’t make me have to call you the Endocrinology Police again now, will you… ; )

ZN is FC?

Of course phoneutria is also quite capable of sustaining exchanges that never seem to come down out of the “theoretical stratosphere”. Here in regard to “value”.

Value? No, not actual things or relationships or beliefs…not actual entities that some value and some don’t. Instead, as “serious philosophers”, it becomes vital to pin down “value” as an intellectual concept. Only when philosophers are thoroughly familiar with all of the technical, epistemological parameters of “value” might they decide to bring that down into the world where people do value different, conflicting things. And, in fact, get into arguments over whether rational human beings are obligated to value some things more than others.

Still, she does come closer to it than he does:

“but I think this distinction is important
as it pertains to being a person
an actual person inside a human body with human thoughts and feelings and processes
and not just a schema of a person written down on some paper”

It’s basically the same distinction that I make. But there’s no actual context proposed in which to “illustrate the text”.

Instead, it stays up in the didactic clouds:

"that when you say:
“Value is the degree to which something is useful in attaining one’s goals.”
i would instead say
“Value is the degree to which something has a meaning”
“but meaningful things are useful!”
“but useful things are meaningful!”

What things pertaining to what goals in what set of circumstances?

“what does it explain about the human animal to say that we value useful things”

Or, for that matter, value things that others consider to be entirely useless.

No, but apparently Meno is:

And in fact it’s not totally unfeasible. After all, FC/Jakob is/was barbarianhorde, abhi-pratapta, and who knows how many more.

Then again, Meno seems unable, by and large, to make sense of others or to make sense himself. You just pretend otherwise out of pity, perhaps (for his having lost his son, and his mind). If you contest this, please explain that post of his which I quoted to Pedro.

Well you do sound upset Which usually a good sign to people like myself, who accidentially step on a buried nerve, thus releasing by catharsis , the negative energy there.

That the barbaric has a function in life is obvious, and the person honest with herself, must admit to the fact that the instinctual callback to it present is only the obvious: The thin veneer of civilization is not a personal thing, but a cover for long suppressed instinctual reactivation of the sorry emotional baggage we all carry around with us.

It does take fortitude to face that in others, but before that, primarily in one’s self.

But at times like these, it’s hard to separate the comic relief from the tragic undertow, and the difference keys in all kinds of misinterpretations.

I’m not at all upset. (Originally you’d written “unhinged”, which is even wider off the mark.) But I am somewhat surprised now; in fact, I think I must have hit a nerve, for you to summon all your wits together like that to form a coherent post! (The last sentence, which you added later, detracts from it again, though.)

I will admit that your “exceptional” objection has turned out to be “the last straw” for me, though. Although my quoting throughout this thread has been an expression of exuberance, not lack, I see now that people need to rationalise it to themselves as a weakness on my part…

::

I understand it may seem out of proportion to lash out at Nemo—and to a lesser extent at Pezo, and Madge—like that, but it’s not; I simply refuse to spare people who provoke me anymore, and confront them instead. I think the earth’s population should decrease, fast! Christians and other deplorables first.

“Some Christian or post-Christian form of monotheism, and with it the death of serious politics, has triumphed everywhere during the last two millennia. If isolated pockets of warrior piety exist today they are pitied as ‘backward’ or ‘underdeveloped’ peoples, that is, people whose ‘sexist’, ‘chauvinist’ or ‘racist’ prejudices require replacement by Christian-liberal ideals. The Jews, and only the Jews, never were reconciled to this replacement. They remained aware of the terrifying emptiness of apolitical, cosmopolitan solutions.” (Neumann, Liberalism, “The Case Against Liberalism”.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18qheVgPJac[/youtube]